Actually, high fructose corn syrup is a very good food supplement to take in for long, hard, sustained effort rides. It's caloric dense, simple carbohydrate that's easy to digest and suck down literally while doing a long ride (or race). It's much cheaper than your cycling energy drinks and gels which incorporate such ingredient in their product.

If you are burning the calories, fine. Today's kids don't run around wild like we did, they sit on the couch and play on their X-Box or watch pros play sports. They drink soda instead of water, (which has zero calories).

Of course blaming the soda instead of the parents and the kids who make the poor dietary/lifestyle choices is the easy way. Soda has been around since before we all were born, yet we get fatter and fatter. But it must be the soda.

Being a voracious label-reader, I've never noticed a niche-marketed sports drink or mix -- this excludes faux-athletic goop like Propel or Vitamin Water -- that contains HFCS.

The conventional wisdom I've always heard is that HFCS is bad for you because it doesn't metabolize the way other carbohydrates do. Its prevalence in the food industry is a testament to monumental subsidies for corn farmers that makes it cheaper than sugar. Soft drinks didn't always contain corn syrup; manufacturers started using it only when financially encouraged to do so by warped market forces.

Those links only tell part of the story. Agricultural welfare not only applies to cheap corn products but more expensive products. California residents get their not-so-drinkable water pumped from places like the Colorado River at the expense of grape growers sourcing cheaply irrigated water to make their not-so-cheap wine. That said, agricultural subsidies are not unique to the United States. Next time you watch the Tour de France, keep an eye out for those sponsors like Credit Lyonnais and Credit Agricole to name a few. Or next time you throw a shrimp on the barbie, it's a pretty safe bet it was shipped exclusively from Vietnam. Poor Bubba Gump doesn't stand a chance to compete. Then there is Japan with rice subsidies and the list goes on..Diet-related health problems like diabeties is a worldwide problem even in parts of the world that do not consume alot of soft drink. More food is produced per hecta-acre each year through technological innovation. It's apparent the US media never really covers such, but that's what the Sunday morning news talk program TV commercials are really for. An increase in worldwide food production is not only true of corn but many other food products, agricultural or otherwise like livestock & fish.

"What do you mean by ""provincial thinking""? Corn is the most subsidized crop in this country. So what if Vietnam gives subsidies to shrimp farmers? What does that have to do with the subject at hand? If someone were to write about corruption in the U.S. government, would you accuse him of provincial thinking because he didn't mention that the Vietnamese government is corrupt too?

""Under the Farm Bill, the great bulk of USDA largesse flows to five crops: corn, soy, cotton, wheat, and rice. Of the $113.6 billion in commodity subsidy payments doled out by the USDA between 1995 and 2004, corn drew $41.8 billion -- more than cotton, soy, and rice combined. By contrast, apples and sugar beets, the only other fruit or vegetable crops that draw federal subsidies, received $611 million over the same period. (The latter are generally processed into sweeteners.)"""

"I'm not taking issue with corn being subsidized. On the contrary. Reread my comments, starting with ""That said, agricultural subsidies are not unique to the United States.. "".

If you want me to take issue with the article. Here's one:""For people on a tight budget, these additives can also make cheap food the most efficient way to get calories."" I also heard such arguments as a kid, in the '70s when inflation was rampant and in the '80s when it was much less so.

The cost of food, unhealthy and healthy food has become cheaper over time and more abundant here and worldwide. This means poor people can afford to eat better food today than they did years ago - if they choose to do so. Using his example, ""a three-ounce chunk of wild salmon"" was considered a bit of a luxury food when I was a middle-class kid.

Today salmon is the equivalent of ground beef as far as fish goes. Go to any bodega's salad/hot bar in NYC and see for yourself. He mentions the price drop of sweets over time but does not mention the same deflated prices for healthy foods like salmon or orange juice. For an article subtitled, ""How the feds make bad-for-you food cheaper than healthful fare"" is a bit folly to not provide any such statistics for healthy food and is really subjective writing. I think it'd pretty clear he's pitching organic food products.

Mind you I'm *not* dismissing all that he writes, but to me his arguments have plenty of holes like Swiss cheese (as in Alpine Lace, the healthy kind of course).

Here's one example:

""While the CDC doesn't break down diabetes rates by income, a look at the disease through the lens of ethnicity shows that those rates tend to align with economics: African Americans and Mexican Americans, for instance, have higher diabetes rates than whites, and lower median incomes.""

His writing is contradictory as it shows that those rates tend to align with his (normative) economics. It's a false premise - like comparing poor whites to the entire black population (poor and rich). Tell us what the diabetes rates are for whites within the same income range as those African Americans and Mexican Americans. That is a fair comparison and passes at least my critical reasoning test.

If you look outside this countries borders, you'll see alot (but not all) of what he writes does not hold muster - using a very large and diverse control group (Non-Americans).

Here's an example, relevant to the above example discussed above, ""..According to the OECD, Mexico is now the second fattest nation in that group of 30 countries. A health poll in 1999 found that 35% of women were overweight, and another 24% technically obese. Juan Rivera, an official at the National Institute of Public Health, says that the combined figure for men would be about 55%, and that a similar poll to be carried out next year will show the fat quotient rising. Only the United States, with combined figures of over 60%, is ahead..."" - Economist, Dec 16th '04 issue."

"He mentions the price drop of sweets over time but does not mention the same deflated prices for healthy foods like salmon or orange juice.

Fisheries around the world are being depleted at a very alarming rate. Salmon is cheap because virtually all Atlantic salmon are now farm-raised. Farmed salmon have high levels of PCBs and dioxins, and are inferior in taste to wild salmon.

You consider orange juice healthy food? High in vitamin C, but very high in calories without producing any sense of fulness. (Still better than worthless HFCS-loaded soft drinks, however.)

The price of gasoline at the pump doesn't reflect the many direct and indirect costs associated with maintaining our oil-dependent economy. Likewise, the real cost of food isn't reflected in the cheap prices at the supermarket or McDonald's. Not included are subsidies to agribusiness, rising public health costs, and the massive damage to the environment caused by industrialized farming.

"Mordecai, your arguments are non-sequitur. I cited Salmon because that was the example he used. What you or I define as healthy foods is irrelevant. The point is that healthy foods have dropped in price as well and that is noticeably absent from his article.

You can make all the emotive rants you want about oil prices and McDonalds, too but fallen food prices and abundant supply makes for a worldwide obesity problem including corn-syrup-free countries with high petrol prices like France (the 2nd largest producer of goods for McDonalds).

Here's one more criticism: leaving external objects, like salmon and orange juice out of the discussion, his contention is still off the mark. The answer provided is not so ""simple"" as to why do low-income on ""tight budgets"" people tend to exhibit more diet-related health problems?.. ""people are gaining weight and getting sick because unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food."" If you are gaining weight, that means you are eating more food than necessary and in turn spending more on food than necessary. "

The content of your posts, including your comments and links provided are a classic case of ""normative economics"" to which my replies fully refuting your claims are ""positive economics"". I'll leave that up to you to seek out such knowledge of these definitions, because without such comprehension, this discussion really is futile."

"If more than 60% of Americans are fat or severely overweight, that is a problem pretty endemic across all income groups. Additionally, sadly this is also true for other countries, poor and rich ones, with large government agricultural subsidies (France) or without (or much less so like Mexico).

I also see plenty of endomorphs shopping in Whole Foods and also witness ""low income"" people purchase food simply on the basis because it's cheap _and_ simply ""tastes good"" rather than some obtuse cost-per-calorie calculation a college professor theorizes (he needs to get out more and stop pooling his data from poor college students).

If you want an example of a real research paper on obesity, complete with rigor, statistical analysis and footnotes, and not a fluff, PR piece, try this:

I should have stopped-before-replying to your ""I don't get your point"" reply to my comments. There's no point in having a logical discussion with someone with deeply ingrained beliefs and emotive/normative responses. And yes, I went back and reread our dialogue before posting this."

"(This is a response to Peter's ""last word"" message, not his ""what I mean by provincial thinking"" message. The exchange between Peter and me was moving too far to the right of my screen, and I don't like to read vertically.)

No, you just couldn’t let this thread die. Too hopefully I wrote, ""You've had the last word"" (perfect tense); I should have realized that for Peter, ""You’ll have the last word"" (future tense) would be a truer prediction.

If more than 60% of Americans are fat or severely overweight, that is a problem pretty endemic across all income groups.

And therefore equally prevalent in all income groups? That's a non-sequitur. I'm surprised at you. And your use of ""endemic"" (which means ""prevalent in or peculiar to a particular locality, region, or people"") is incorrect. The word you mean is ""epidemic.""

If you want an example of a real research paper on obesity, complete with rigor, statistical analysis and footnotes, and not a fluff, PR piece, try this:

It’s sad that the authors, for all their rigor, are willing to entertain what you would consider an outlandish theory. On page 14: ""If, as some argue, energy-dense foods cost less than whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, then demand for such foods may be particularly strong among people looking to economize on their food budgets."" Footnote 22 gives the source for this: one article written, one co-written, by Adam Drewnowski. But what is truly remarkable here is the citation of the second article: all three names are spelled wrong! For Drewnowski, Darmon, and Briend (http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/9/1555), the footnote gives ""Drenowski, Damon, and Brien."" What, did the proof-reader quit before publication? So much for accuracy! (Undoubtedly, the authors’ rigor is still uncompromised.)

Take a look at http://www.nber.org/digest/feb03/w9247.html: ""Their analysis shows that more time devoted to work and less time devoted to the labor-intensive activity of food preparation in the home favors the low cost and convenience of fast food and prepared food. These foods have extremely high caloric density, are satisfying and habit forming, and they almost certainly contribute to the obesity epidemic. For this reason, the incidence of obesity is most prevalent among those sectors of the workforce (chiefly low-end wage earners, women, non-whites) whose real income has fallen even as more hours are devoted to work.""

Hmm, these words sound familiar...ah, yes, the beginning of the Drewnowski and Darmon abstract I linked: ""Highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the United States are found among the lower-income groups."" Now, this is clearly a classic case of ""normative"" economics. And ""where's (sic) the details supporting such claim (sic)?"" I'm shocked that you call these NBER articles ""examples of credible and thorough economic research.""

I should have stopped-before-replying (sic) to your 'I don't get your point' reply to my comments.

I fully agree with you, Peter, for once! (By the way, you never answered that first question: ""What do you mean by 'provincial thinking'?"")

There's no point in having a logical discussion with someone with deeply ingrained beliefs and emotive/normative responses.

If there's a mote in my eye, then there must be a beam in yours. When you pulled the thread about Bush’s bicycle crash, was"

"If not a drop of high fructose corn syrup was ever found on this planet, I contend that this country would still be in the same shape (pun intended).

How so? Obesity exists worldwide as evident by this link. This list of obese countries varies greatly in economically, politically, and socially. What is common to them all is that food is cheap and in abundant supply.

You take this country to task with points about cheap oil, agriculutral subsidies, and corruption among other things as the cause for our obesity. Assuming all of what your write is true, so what - it's nothing unique to our country. (The examples you use in a bellicose tone lead me to believe you do think it is unique.)

I counter using France as an example. For instance, its oil charged to consumers is not cheap, its agriculutral subsidies are just as prevelant and as high, if not more so and are ranked higher in the corruption index than the USA. And yes, despite France's reputation for healthy eating, they really are the 2nd largest producer of McDonalds goods.

To me I take issue with your myopic knocks against the USA as being silly. I have no beef (pun intended) with France; rather I just use them to illustrate my point why I think you are silly. I hope you now have a better idea of what I mean by ""provincial thinking"". "

Peter, It is clear to everyone reading this thread that you are a very nasty individual with an agenda that goes beyond the issue of the health benefits or risks of high fructose corn syrup. That you choose to defend this particular ingredient makes this quite obvious. I'm sure you feel that there is nothing wrong with aspartame as well? How about hydrogentated oils? Forget the economics of food supply and your debating skills, how about sticking to a discussion of nutritional science.

Judging from your post, I'd say, much like your hiding in anonymity, you are a closet lover of consuming high fructose corn syrup in large quantities. Why?

Too much sugar or refined carbohydrates can actually deprive your brain of glucose – depleting its energy supply and compromising your brain's power to concentrate, remember, and learn (as well cause bouts of moodiness, too).

Mental activity, like reading comprehension and critical reasoning skills, requires a lot of energy. I could not help but notice from your post this is quite absent on your part. Consider this some food for thought.

"I am not sure this is a genuine post, since it has all the hallmarks of a Stephen Colbert essay. Does he cycle?

The following one-liners are meant in good fun, I hope:1) This post perfectly illustrates what Peter meant by provincial thinking.2) I would say that Peter is giving ""O'Reilly"" a bad name, but it's too late.3) The question still remains: Mordecai, when will you stop hating America?"

"Here's an interesting link that confirms alot of what you write:http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040910.htmlThe one exception though is the ""conventional wisdom"" comment - re: the difference between HFCS and traditional sugar is slight."

It may have been around since the beginning of time, but soda has never been marketed as aggressively as it is now, nor sold and served in such large containers, nor encouraged as a breakfast drink, lunch drink, dinner drink, snack, energy boost, way of life, nectar of the gods, absolute requirement for a rich complete life, etc. Parents especially, and the people who market this junk are far more to blame for the resultant obesity and poor health than the poor kid who really, in most cases, has no choice.

Something else to think about is that Coca Cola doesn't use high-fructise corn syrup in Europe. Coke uses cane sugar in Europe. So not only do the Europeans eat far less processed and GM (genetically modified) food than Americans, their Coca Cola tastes better.

Is that the same person who formulated Rodovic's Rule, that ""in any organization, the potential is much greater for the subordinate to manage his superior than for the superior to manage his subordinate""?

"""..when food is scarcer, you become less hungry; and you get hungrier when there's a lot of food around...""

A recent NY Times Magazine article, The Accidental Diet is an account of a Cal-Berkley psychology professor who lost allot of weight and kept it off by consuming a few tablesppons of olive oil or sugar water (using used granulated fructose).

I wonder if he took a hybrid approach and substituted High Fructose Corn Syrup for both, whether it will be as effective since it the same attributes: oily texture and sweetness."